Let’s begin by having a look at this aspect of David Zeigler’s assertions:

In our science, there is no mention of, or mechanism for achieving, any long-term metaphysical or teological goals of form, complexity, or intelligence—as Gould has argued so eloquently. Most of the other known mechanisms of evolutionary change such as genetic drift, neutral mutation, gene duplications, transposons, horizontal gene transfer by plasmids, and others have no direction or goal at all and are in fact random (which natural selection is not) and therefore could not possibly give a particular direction to evolution.

Whenever someone says that something “could not possibly” happen, be careful, as the claim may be a cleverly disguised argument from ignorance. In this case, is it truly obvious that our understanding of evolution allows us to embrace the non-teleological perspective with such a sense of certainty?

Allow me to re-use Zeigler’s basic argument with some significant word changes:

Most of the other known mechanisms for making money such as Poker, Blackjack, Slot Machines, Roulette and others have no direction or goal at all and are in fact random and therefore could not possibly give a particular direction for the Casino.

Of course, this statement is false. There is a particular direction, a goal, that the casino achieves – making a profit. The casino may not be able to predict an exact amount on an exact date, but the casino knows the rules of the games and knows that despite the random nature of any particular outcome, taken as a whole, and over time, a profit is effectively determined. Randomness is employed as a means to reach a goal, given that the rules of game front-load the outcome.

We can call this the Casino Principle – the intelligent use of chance. And it is here where we can begin to appreciate the non-teleological view of evolution may simply be a superficial perspective on evolution. Yes, the known mechanisms of evolutionary change have no direction or goal at all and are in fact random, but that is not sufficient reason for thinking such mechanisms cannot be intelligently recruited to achieve a goal.

Let’s consider some more neglected perspective in the next posting.